SNAP's critical legal battle for survivor privacy
Dear friends;
As you are a cherished friend to SNAP, we want to explain what Kansas City and St. Louis Catholic officials are doing to attack us and those who seek our help. We've included a lengthy "Q & A" here that outlines the details. But the bottom line is this: Catholic officials are desperately trying to conceal their wrong-doing by attacking victims. They're trying to silence victims, and others , by trying to severely weaken SNAP. In October, SNAP Director David Clohessy was served with a subpoena in Kansas City by church defense lawyers. They demanded emails, correspondence and other records (some going back 23 years) including deeply private conversations with victims, their names and the details of the abuse they suffered.
Last month, Clohessy and SNAP Outreach Director Barbara Dorris were hit with more subpoenas, this time from the St. Louis archdiocese. Naturally our first concern was, and remains, the privacy of victims, most of whom never have or never will speak publicly or take any kind of legal action. We also quickly realized, however, that these wide-ranging demands also sought communications between SNAP and thousands of other individuals we help: family members,witnesses, whistleblowers, journalists, therapists, concerned Catholics and law enforcement officials. Our first duty is to those who seek and sought our guidance. For that reason, we fought tooth and nail to keep David from having to testify. Ultimately, we lost that fight. David was deposed. But he adamantly refused to give any names or private details about victims. And we're refusing to turn over any documents with similar information.
The ramifications of these actions have already hit SNAP hard. Owing to massive legal bills which we cannot pay at this time, we have been forced to ask our attorney in Kansas City to withdraw from the case. The fact is we can no longer afford to pay him and still keep the lights on. We are seeking pro-bono help as the case moves forward and will update you as to our progress. Meanwhile in Kansas City, attorneys for the Catholic Church have moved forward with a "Motion to Compel" SNAP Director, David Clohessy to reveal private information about members and victims connected with SNAP and the case against Father Joseph Tierney. We will not reveal any of the information the church is requesting. The privacy of our survivors and members is absolutely paramount! So, David is preparing himself and his family as he faces jail time if necessary.
Over two decades ago, we in SNAP pledged ourselves to protect and help victims, witnesses, whistleblowers, police, prosecutors, journalists, in fact anyone who was working to stop and expose child sex crimes and cover ups. That promise has not and will not be broken, no matter what forces are arrayed against us. The fact that we have been so successful is the chief reason that we now find ourselves in this painful and threatening situation. However it is one we shall win.
Your support has been critical in our accomplishing our mission and is even more essential now. We, therefore, ask that you consider making a donation in order to help us meet the unprecedented challenge which faces us. In order to donate, simply go online to our donate page. Alternatively you can or mail it to SNAP: P.O. Box 6416, Chicago, Illinois 60680-6416 or call our Development department at (312) 455-1499. Meanwhile,. I want to assure you that SNAP remains as committed to end clergy sex crimes and cover ups as ever. These are difficult times, but we will prevail together.
Warm Regards,
Barbara Blaine
David Clohessy
FACT SHEET
What's the crisis facing SNAP?
Catholic officials in two Missouri dioceses are trying to force key SNAP staff people to answer hours of questions under oath about and turn over thousands of pages of confidential communications with victims, witnesses, whistleblowers, police, prosecutors, journalists and concerned parishioners. It's an unprecedented assault on crime victims, on those who help crime victims and on our self help group.
Who's affected by this?
This potentially affects any crime victim who wants or needs privacy. It also affects police, prosecutors, journalists, witnesses, whistleblowers, victims, self help groups, counseling agencies - literally anyone who helps victims and exposes criminals. Emboldened by church officials' legal successes, a rapist may now seek, and perhaps get, records and depositions from staff at the center his victim went to for help. A violent husband might get documents and depositions from staff at the domestic violence center where the spouse he battered sought refuge.
Why is it a crisis?
This is the most severe threat we in SNAP have ever faced, for at least three reasons. First, fewer people are stepping forward and seeking help, fearing that their identities and experiences will be turned over to lawyers for predator priests and corrupt bishops. Second, these legal attacks consume massive amounts of time that our volunteers and staff need to devote to protecting kids, exposing predators, helping victims, reforming laws, and deterring future child sex crimes and cover ups. Third, these moves are driving SNAP toward bankruptcy. (We've had to suddenly spend tens of thousands of dollars just fighting and dealing with the first subpoena and church officials seem determined to drag out this process for months and months.) Some of our current members now fear that we will turn over their private information. As such, they have requested that we remove from them our member list.
Has SNAP already been hurt?
Absolutely. We've already spent more than 300 person-hours going through files. For weeks, we've done little of what we normally do to "protect the vulnerable and heal the wounded." Instead, we've been forced to look long and hard for pro bono attorneys to help us. And we've spent hours and hours working with attorneys to fight motion after motion from church defense lawyers, prepare for depositions, etc.
Why are Catholic officials doing this?
We're convinced Catholic officials are trying to shut us down and shut victims up, while also deterring witnesses, whistleblowers, journalists and other from contacting us. There are lots of other theories. Some suggest that this is a move to distract the public and parishioners from the serious and on-going clergy sex crimes and cover ups in the Kansas City diocese (where Bishop Robert Finn faces criminal charges for refusing, for months, to give evidence of child porn to police). Others feel the attack stems from our formal complaint at the International Criminal Court against top Vatican officials for continuing to enable and conceal child sex crimes. (That filing was in early September. We were hit with the first subpoena in late October.)
How exactly are Catholic officials mounting this attack?
They're trying to drag us in to two civil lawsuits in which we're not involved. (SNAP has, in fact, only filed one lawsuit in our history.) In Kansas City, it's John Doe BP v. Fr. Michael Tierney and the Kansas City diocese. In St. Louis, it's Jane Doe v. Fr. Joseph D. Ross and the St. Louis archdiocese. They have issued four wide-ranging subpoenas (one in Kansas City and three in St. Louis) on two SNAP leaders (David Clohessy and Barbara Dorris) demanding thousands of pages of emails and records involving many individuals who have never met the accused or the accusers or even heard of the lawsuits at issue. Earlier this month, Clohessy was deposed for more than six hours by five lawyers representing Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn and five Kansas City accused pedophile priests (Fr. Michael Tierney, Msgr. Thomas O'Brien, Fr. Mark Honhart, Fr. Francis McGlynn and Fr. Thomas Cronin).
How is SNAP responding?
We're doing all that we can to protect the privacy of people who contact us. (Our choices are limited, however, because we are not a party to either lawsuit. Church officials are shrewdly attacking us in a venue where we lack much power or many options.) In his deposition, Clohessy refused to answer many question or give virtually any information about our members, supporters, and donors or our contacts withfamily members, journalists, police, prosecutors, whistleblowers and concerned Catholics. We provided hundreds of pages of already-public documents (news releases, lawsuits, a print out of our website). But we are also refusing to provide hundreds more pages that we consider private under our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, the Missouri rape shield law, and similar laws.
Are these two bishops acting alone?
We don't think so. This is the first time any SNAP staffer has been subpoenaed in 23 years, within weeks, and they've done it to two of our three professional staff. The first two subpoenas, though issued in different diocese by different lawyers, are virtually identical.
Are these two accused priests guilty?
The Kansas City priest (Tierney) has been suspended by his own bishop and faces at least five accusers in pending civil cases. The St. Louis priest (Ross) pled guilty in the late 1988 to molesting a boy. (After his sentence was completed, archdiocesan officials quietly put him back into a parish, warning no one. That's when and where he sexually assaulted this now 19 year old girl from 1998-2000.)
What about the claim that the Kansas City victim's attorney allegedly broke a "gag order?"
We in SNAP don't believe she did. And we're highly skeptical of this claim, in part because church officials refuse to take steps to formally accuse her with any wrongdoing. (They merely make the accusation without doing so in any forum where she could defend herself.) No one has found that she's done anything wrong. And we in SNAP didn't and couldn't violate any such "gag order" because none was issued against us.
What's next in the legal arena?
In St. Louis, we're trying to figure out who we can get to represent us. In Kansas City we expect lawyers for Tierney and Bishop Finn to try to get a judge to force us to give them even more information (both documents and deposition answers) soon.
How have journalists responded to these attacks?
The Missouri Press Association, representing 280 news outlets, has filed an amicus brief in court challenging the Kansas City subpoena as a threat to press freedom. The state's two largest newspapers, the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Kansas City Star, have editorialized against church officials and their lawyers. The National Catholic Reporter has also editorialized on their side. A link to these articles can be found here: www.snapnetwork.org/snaps_fight
In KC, isn't this an attack by the accused priest, not by Bishop Finn?
It's important to remember that Fr. Tierney has sworn to obey Bishop Finn and is still being paid by Finn. Finn is a monarch in charge of the whole diocese. So Finn could order Tierney to stop. Instead, Finn's lawyers are cooperating with Tierney's lawyers while Finn himself stays silent. (We also suspect that Finn is paying for Tierney's lawyer.) This is often the pattern in clergy sex abuse and cover up cases: the predator priest's lawyer plays "bad cop" while the complicit bishop's lawyer plays "good cop."
In St. Louis, the attack comes from Archbishop Robert Carlson, right?
Correct.
How do the two cases differ?
In Kansas City the subpoena was issued in late October and the deposition was January 2nd of this year. In St. Louis, the subpoenas were issued in early January and the depositions are set for February 22nd. In Kansas City, the priest (Tierney) is still a priest (so almost certainly still on the payroll) and lives there. In St. Louis, the priest (Ross) has been defrocked (so is NOT on the church payroll) and his whereabouts are unknown. In Kansas City, the victim is male, middle aged and repressed his memories. In St. Louis, the victim is female, in her teens and did NOT repress her memories.
How can we help?
Please go our website if you would like more information about the case athttp://www.snapnetwork.org/snaps_fight
When articles about the legal attacks appear, please make supportive comments on line (If you're not sure how to do that, contact the SNAP office 312 455 1499 or email SNAPDevelopment@gmail.com.
Letters to the editor of newspapers that write about this controversy are always helpful.
If you belong to or work for a group, especially one that might be affected by this assault on victims' privacy, please consider asking the group to support us.
In order to donate, simply go online to our donate page. Alternatively you can or mail it to SNAP: P.O. Box 6416, Chicago, Illinois 60680-6416 or call our Development department at (312) 455-1499.
Dr Margaret Kennedy Responds:
What is Happening in Kansas City & St Louis: SNAP battle for survivor privacy and all who support them.
It is with deep concern that all survivor groups supporting clergy abuse victims view the outrageous attack by Catholic Church lawyers to see carte blance everything on file in a survivor support organisation, namely SNAP (see below message from SNAP)
That the Church is agreeing with it lawyers to invade the privacy of victims in this way speaks volumes about the concerted efforts of Church officials to protect itself and its abusers above and beyond any victim of clergy sexual abuse.
Apologies from Rome, the recent conference organised by the Jesuits in Rome, 'visitations' to Irish Dioceses as if to show concern, are truly meaningless and only convey the double standards of the Catholic Church in the light of the wholescale onslought against SNAP and all the victims who bravely found a voice to come forward and seek support.
The repercussions of the legal actions by the Church in the above Dioceses is to drive support groups into liquidation/bankrupcy, stop all avenues of support to clergy victims and silence in fear any victim who wants to speak out. If the Church wins this battle then no support organisation for victims can survive as victims will not trust their experience to anyone if the Church can railroad their confidentiality in this fashion. This means victims will suffer extraordinary lonliness, despair, become suicidal and have no-where to turn to. That these two Dioceses don't 'care' about the repercussions to victims can only mean the Church has finally lost all claim to want to make redress and recompnse to victims of clergy sexual abuse.
The hypocrisy of Rome and the above Dioceses who cannot allow a support group privacy so that the well-being of victims is preserved is clear for all to see.
Now is the time for victims, their families and supporters to rise up against this 'war' against victims and their support groups especially since the Church still refuses to open its own files to legal and public scrutiny.
The whole machinary of this 'organisation' (it can no longer be called a CHURCH of God) is wholly based on a lie to Christ to service his people.
Dr Margaret Kennedy
MACSAS UK
No comments:
Post a Comment